by FakeName5678 (12.16.08 11:18 pm)

by Back Talk (12.17.08 09:02 am)

by Back Talk (12.21.08 06:37 pm)

Is this why so much “faddish ” art looks like a PRODUCT?

www.theartnewspaper.com/article.asp?id=16683According to Mr Perrotin, the primary goal of Artists’ Dreams will be to create a private investment pool to finance the production of large-scale works by his and other dealers’ artists for commercial and museum exhibitions. An elaborate sliding scale has been established to calculate the percentage of profit a gallery will make in relationship to the investors based on the length of time it takes to sell the work—the shorter the sales time, the better the gallery does; the longer the sales time, the better the investor does.

by Back Talk (12.24.08 11:38 am)

by zuckermann (12.26.08 06:36 pm)

why don't you talk about ai wei wei and china, instead of andre and flavin. Is it so difficult for you not to talk about yourselves, about american art? try to understand the others, don't stay looking your navel

by Back Talk (12.27.08 09:49 am)

Dear Zuckermann
Its more about the pre/approved influences by this magazine and the NY Times. Ai Wei just happen to be on this website but I do have to say his Title of the piece “Bubble” is timely. There could be hundreds if not thousands of artist Id say the same. So why do all the big blue chip galleries go to Berlin and Beijing? with the idea that all the young artist will copy their best sellers and they can raise the prices even higher.This is a old story with a new twist.
Thanks for understanding, All the Best ..NYC underground

by Back Talk (12.28.08 07:19 pm)

Steven Henry Madoff on “Abstract Expressionism”I loved this review ..it reminded me of the old days in Artforum when you had to look up at least 2 words and half the time they weren't even in the dictionary! But Im not sure if Steven even like the show or the work?(I think he does)...what do you think? seemed like he was comparing AE to the stock market or was he saying contemporary art is similar to the idea that its value is based on something else ..like a “financial instruments” Its a strange place we have ended up in .I always thought the anti-formalist were against art about art but here we are looking at art thats depends on art history or the artist as a life style is the art(virtual art?)
Also Donald Kuspits review of Bram Bogart was perfect but mostly for this one statement...“All one can do is admire its grandeur” that to me is what any great art should be ..you can say this you can say that but all you can really do is admire...even if its not your “thing” keep this in mind When Picasso was painting the first analytical cubist paintings Monet was in the middle of his “ Water Lilies”

by Back Talk (12.30.08 09:33 pm)

by Back Talk (12.31.08 10:24 am)

Brilliant review... I have to say when Robertas “on” theres nobody better!

www.nytimes.com/2008/12/31/arts/design/31chan.html?ref=artsThe show is a valuable chance to contemplate the spread of an artistic style, and the ratio of originality and talent as well as diligence and ambition that makes an artist “canon worthy.” The fact of who did it first is less interesting than who did it best and took it somewhere.

by dopplebock (12.31.08 03:04 pm)

yeah that review made me want to see the show for a change.

On another note - speaking of non-entities, did artforum recognize the passing of willoughby sharpe? he published an influential art magazine if nothing else. Maybe he will be in the next issue or something.

I only met him once or twice and I thought he was a shyster, which is good.

by hotgradstudent (01.01.09 10:41 am)

quit talking the money,
try looking at integral quality,
some artists make meglamaniac art,
some are modest,
you can find good and bad in both.
Andre, Flavin, Koons are all great artists,
simply because of what they invented,
not because of their relationship to collector/gallery cartels.

The business is always gonna be there,
don't let it get in the way of seeing what's there!

by Back Talk (01.01.09 07:26 pm)

HGS! wow where you been I heard some where they fired you at Artforum? Great Artists? hum... only if you believe in the late modernist and post modernist rules.The reason I put up the Roberta Smith article was just for this reason ...she seems to be having a change of heart on 2 issues that are at the top of the
Late modernist and PO rules First-ness and Talent As far as Koons vision its not that great or original blowing up small popular culture objects is just more of the same from the first gen Pop artists like Oldenburg and even then Disney did it better and TV with the Land of the Lost ect.(Gulliver's Travels?) But the whole idea of art as object is another cop out and thinking of money its become art as product which looks a little sad at the beginning of this century.Life and art is about making decisions,experience and having relationships not living life like a robot/machine who has been programed

by Nomad3 (01.02.09 01:56 pm)

by Back Talk (01.03.09 09:23 am)

Jasper Johns needs to work more ...where hes at now he should have been at 25 years ago He's lets his chops get rusty ...and thinking of chops...you can say what you want about minimalism/conceptualism but its visually tame -conservative more like alternative/folk white boys music. I like R&B/Free Jazz

by dopplebock (01.04.09 12:25 am)

I too enjoy the free jazz, but ragtime swing and be bop can do it for me as well - im feeling jovial, so even young country in limited doses could be good. Stilll I tend towards power pop, metal, fol rock, rock and more rock - can't get enough really.

But I can un derstand that to a musician, 4/4 time could be a bit of a drag - but are you doing power chords for yourself or for the audience?

Sometimes it seems like all that world music is just some kind of vampire weekend hokum to get chicks in the sack (or dudes I guess).

Jasper Johns is a bit too chamomile for me is what im sAying - I like whiskey,

by Back Talk (01.07.09 10:15 am)

by CAP (01.08.09 06:43 am)

‘This has many layers of meaning, but in the end, the appearance of the work is the most important aspect. The appearance can, of course, be very misleading or fake, and yet the work always has to be attractive. But it also has to be natural, and people need to feel naturally attracted by it. Bubble, for example, is startling: It reflects the city far across the water and the sky. It seems to have its own life; it changes color constantly.’

Yeah I think I saw this stuff at my local Mall - very tasteful, easy on the eye, with full approval of the panel of architects and civil servants. It looked even better when we came back later for a tag session.

Ai Yi-Yi-Yi!

God I'm sick of Chinerse artists making a fortune out of telling us what a shit hole China is. As for the up-date on Minimalism - DUH -
Sorry Ai but that was wei wei too long ago for anyone but Dick '“Call me Floppy” Serra or Carl “Someone push me out this window!” Andre to even care about.

by FakeName5678 (01.11.09 02:34 pm)

by Back Talk (01.11.09 05:33 pm)

Or maybe this is a better definition of the academy?The suggestive political and economic undertones in the exhibition (some more subtle than others), succinctly articulate the gallery’s post-pop conceptual focus, which mixes agit-prop, conceptual high jinks and bawdy imagery.

by Back Talk (01.20.09 09:47 am)

Philippe Vergne ...“putting 400 poles in the desert is unreasonable” only because it cost so much money to do and maintain. Most of the sculpture at DIA looks that way .If everyone had the money it would become “reasonable”... Its to much about the money

by Back Talk (01.21.09 10:08 am)

HGS...welcome back!...so what is the relationship of money to late Dada ?(concept pop) basically Im thinking the more absurd you are the more money you need. Ideas are pretty easy ..like wow smoke a joint and lets cast the MOMA in bronze and paint it PINK! What the F%$*$K would that cost? so is getting the money the art? or?

by hotgradstudent (01.25.09 07:36 am)

when has money and art not equaled a bland taste for the risible, divisible and spectacular?

That's mostly what art plus fancy money =. No? Makes the achievements of the high priests of high minimalism worth thinking on again in those terms. But hell, if it's that damn easy to cook the idea, connect with a gallery, get the thing funded, shown, documented why isn't everyone doing it rather than putting plaster band on their worn out Toshy?

by Back Talk (01.25.09 09:57 am)

HGS
Getting the money and connecting with a gallery is the “hard part” the idea is easy. So what does this mean ? if anything... but I do think it does. In some ways I question why artists feel they have to compete with pop culture. We (artists) use to lead the culture in new directions now everyone JUST wants to be a mirror.
oxoxo